Journal article icon

Journal article : Comment

Ethical implications of poor comparative effectiveness evidence: obligations in industry-research partnerships.

Abstract:

Which treatment is best for me? This question is at the centre of the clinical consultation. And yet, too often, the question is not answerable with available evidence on drugs and devices. The two Lancet Series papers on comparative effectiveness 1 , 2 document the shortcomings of the process for regulatory approval in incentivising the generation of comparative effectiveness evidence that is useful for patients, clinicians, and the health-care system. The paucity of meaningful comparative ...

Expand abstract
Publication status:
Published
Peer review status:
Peer reviewed

Actions


Access Document


Authors


More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
MSD
Department:
Psychiatry
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0003-4497-3587
More by this author
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0002-3591-369X
More by this author
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0002-4061-8011
More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
MSD
Department:
Psychiatry
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0001-5179-8321
More from this funder
Name:
National Institute for Health Research
Grant:
RP-2017-08-ST2-006
Publisher:
Elsevier
Journal:
Lancet More from this journal
Volume:
395
Issue:
10228
Pages:
926-928
Publication date:
2020-03-19
Acceptance date:
2020-02-14
DOI:
EISSN:
1474-547X
ISSN:
0140-6736
Pmid:
32199476
Language:
English
Keywords:
Subtype:
Comment
Pubs id:
1098848
Local pid:
pubs:1098848
Deposit date:
2020-06-08

Terms of use


Views and Downloads






If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

TO TOP